Sunday, July 15, 2018

“First, Indian secularism cannot be anti-religious or irreligious, for the bulk of our people are deeply religious. Unlike in Christendom, where the word originated, secularism in India is not about pitting the state against the religious authority but about keeping matters of faith in the personal realm and matters of the state in the public realm. Second, in a nation of many faiths, where people take their faith seriously, secularism must be based on the principle of equal respect for all religions (and for those who choose not to follow any religion). As Nehru once said, ‘[Secularism] means freedom of religion and conscience, including freedom of those who may have no religion. It means free play of all religions, subject only to their not interfering with each other or with basic conceptions of our state.” (Aiyar 2004: Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist).

He further says,

“However, in regard to affairs of state, secularism translates not into equal involvement of the state in matters pertaining to each religion but rather the separation of the state from all religions. In secular India, the state must have no religion. For the state, whatever religion an Indian professes or propagates must remain a private and personal matter of the citizen. The state should concern itself not with religion but with protection for all, equal opportunity for all, equitable benefits for all. No religious community should be singled out for favours; no religious community should be subjected to any disability or disadvantage.” (Aiyar, Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist, Penguin Books, New Delhi, 2004)

Secularism is defined differently in different countries. Secularism is often used to describe the separation of public life and government matters from religions or simply the separation of religion and politics. Most of the so-called developed countries do not recognise religions, thus granting no special value to any particular religion. The beauty of India’s secularism lies in its taking a completely different course from them. India’s secularism means equal treatment of all religions by the state. With the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976, the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. Though neither the constitution of India nor its laws define the relationship between religion and state, India recognizes each and every religion and seeks to give them equal respect. The citizens of India are allowed to enjoy their respective religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. with full freedom.

Since Indian secularism gives every citizen right to fulfil his or her respective religious obligations, it will be futile to view this secularism as anti-religious or anti-Islamic.

In context of Muslims’ faith, Indian secularism does not prevent Muslims from fulfilling their basic religious obligations as mentioned in the Qur'anic verse which reads,

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me” (51:56).

Indian secularism gives Muslims full freedom to worship Allah Almighty. Yes they can fulfil all their religious obligations, acquiring Taqwa and achieving spiritual development. There is no one to stop Indian Muslims from performing acts of worship—five-time prayers, fasting, Hajj, Zakat, spiritual meditations, doing Zikr [remembrance] of Allah and attaining spiritual perfection.

A number of Islamic scholars and clerics regard secularism as compatible with Islam. For example, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, a professor of law at Emory University the author of ‘Islam and the secular state: negotiating the Future of Sharia’ says, “enforcing [Sharia] through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims” [Islam and the Secular State…Cambridge Harvard University press 2008]

The phrase “Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava” or “equal respect for all religions” is popularly thought to be a Hindu concept embraced by Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Gandhi. However some Hindu scholars do not accept it as a part of Hindu tradition. They attribute this phrase to Gandhi who used it first in September 1930 in his talks to his followers to quell divisions between Hindus and Muslims. However, majority of Hindus believe this phrase as one of the key tenets of secularism in India, wherein the state gives equal respect to all religions.

In his speech during the Iranshah Udvada Utsav, 2017 (a cultural festival of Parsi community), The Vice President of India M. Venkaiah Naidu said, “In fact, I have been saying that secularism was in the DNA of every Indian much before it was enshrined in the Constitution. ‘Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava’ epitomizes India’s secular ethos. India is a land of diverse cultures and religions,” He further said, “The secular foundations of the country must be strengthened further and any attempt to create differences in the name of religion by vested interests and religious extremists must be nipped in the bud,”.

Indeed secularism is indispensible in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like India. Secularism is the beauty of India, mainly because it gives equal respect to all religions and that it is not anti-religious. It is therefore obligatory for the followers of all religions to develop this Indian secularism, for which they shall have to strengthen their peaceful coexistence. Apart from that, we Indians should impart such values to our students, children and people so that can avoid being brainwashed by any anti-Indian secular Muslim or non-Muslim groups.

Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is a Classical scholar of Islamic Sciences (Theology, Fiqh, Tafsir and Hadith), English-Arabic-Urdu Writer and Translator. So far he has written more than a hundred articles, especially on subjects like de-radicalization, counter-terrorism, Peaceful coexistence, Islamic Mysticism (Tasawwuf).

The recent ‘desire’ of AIMPLB to establishDarul-Qazasin every district has understandably met with resistance, not just from different political parties, but also from within the Muslim community. It must be underlined though that equating this with something like a Sharia court is clearly a misnomer. Courts have the ‘power’ to adjudicate over issues; theDarul-Qazawill have no such power and as such will be more like arbitration councils.

To be fair to the AIMPLB, such quasi-judicial bodies do exist in other communities, such as the Khap Panchayats in Western Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. In some tribal areas, these bodies even have legal recognition. Thus, the establishment of Darul Qaza may well within be the ambit of law. Demanding for a ban on Darul Qazas while remaining silent on Khaps is clearly hypocritical.

It should also be understood that Darul Qazas have been functioning in this country since at least 1972. If at all, these councils are to be opposed, they should be opposed in their totality, and not just the recent attempt of AIMPLB to extend the Darul Qazas to every part of the country.

Critics have pointed out that if these quasi courts have no authority to enforce their rulings, then what is the point in having them in the first place? That’s a wrong framing of the question. Suppose that they had the power to enforce its ruling, will it mean that it is okay for the country to have Sharia courts? We need to understand that modern legal system has evolved through the ages and is currently built on nearly sacred notions of human rights, equality before the law, etc.

Systems like the Sharia, which claim divine origin, have refused to evolve and are therefore still defined by notions and precepts which are centuries old and are repelling to modern sensibilities. The Sharia law is still governed by legal inequality between men and women with women still being considered the property of men in many ways. The less said about Islam’s position on alternative sexualities, the better it will be. Will we be okay with the provision within the Sharia law that homosexuals should be put to death?

Arguments like the Sharia law is divinely inspired and therefore superior to man-made laws, as is argued by some Islamists, are simply bogus. We must concede that it is the secular law which is far ahead of any divine law simply because it has the capacity to evolve and change.

Enforcing rules need not be done only through legal means. There is something called societal pressure which creates norms and values in any society and they normally acquire the force of law over a period of time. Since most of these norms are derived from religion, those specialising in religious affairs normally acquire the status of keepers of norms and values. Thus it does not help to debate whether theDarul Qazaswill have legal sanctity or not. If they continue to operate, they will eventually have the power to enforce their rulings through various methods like censoring, social boycotts, etc.

What the AIMPLB is trying to do is precisely this: it is trying to create a counter-hegemonic narrative which is largely in opposition to the modern secular logic of the Indian jurisprudence. Through theseDarul Qazas, it wants Muslims to rely only on the religious law and they (the AIMPLB) become the master interpreters of this law. We must also understand that this move comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court abrogating the practice of instant triple Talaq which gave Muslim men unbridled control over their women.

Moreover, there are a bunch of petitions pending in the Supreme Court through which Muslim women are trying to outlaw the pernicious practice ofNikah Halalaand even challenging polygamy. The AIMPLB knows fully well that it has a weak case in the courts. Their defence of instant triple Talaq was ridiculous to say the least and their argument that Sharia is a divine law and hence cannot be changed in increasingly being seen as illogical. Since they cannot safeguard their interests through the secular courts, they have resorted to creating and sustaining a parallel eco-system in which they will be custodians of Islamic law. Without being alarming, one can almost sense that they want to continue the practice of tripleTalaq, Nikah Halala, etc. through the back door and subvert the Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

This will only lead to the gradual withdrawal of the Muslims from the annals of the state and will lead them into a world of their own; a terrifying idea given the need for Muslims to be integrating into the very crevices of the state for their own survival as a minority. But then, the AIMPLB will be very pleased with such an outcome as ultimately they want Muslims to intellectually, socially, culturally and emotionally secede from the nation.

It is therefore in the interests of Muslims to distance themselves from the fissiparous politics played by the AIMPLB and make it loud and clear that despite the hardships, they would chose the laws of the secular state overDarul Qazas. The opposition to the AIMPLB should start with questioning their very right to represent Indian Muslims. Are they an elected body? If not, then who gave them the right to abrogate to themselves to become the representative voice of Indian Muslims? Do they adequately represent the diversity of Indian Muslims? How many Shias and women do they have in their boards? Or are we just to believe that a few Sunni Maulanas can sit in judgment over the fate of entire Muslim community? It is time that this rump called AIMPLB must itself be abrogated. And Muslims themselves must takethe lead in doing so.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

The chairman of the newly formed Emirates Fatwa Council, Abdullah Ibn Bayyah and other high-profile Islamic scholars vowed on Monday (July 9, 2018) at an inaugural meeting to wage a pre-emptive war against extremists and rogue Fatwas that promote extremist and terrorist narratives.

Sheikh Ibn Bayyah, who is also the chairman of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, said the council would make all the possible efforts to “protect the country from corrupt Fatwas and disrupting influences that endanger the safety of society, citizens and even the entire world”. He said, “The role of the council will be a significant step for scholars and their counterparts in this blessed country”.

He further said, “The council will act against extremists who have defamed Islam”. For this purpose, the council would also train muftis, mentor their skills and promote related studies in coordination with the country’s General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments.

Ibn Bayyah said that we should immediately take step against extremists by using preventive measures to curb hatred and violence. The council, he said, will make society “immune to corrupt Fatwas that provoke disorder and ignite flames of war and violence instead of developing an environment of peaceful coexistence”

During the meeting, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, the president of Zaytuna University in California and one of the West’s most influential Islamic scholars, said, “Fatwas are an effort to understand what God means…. “It is a very difficult thing to do. A number of people are not qualified but they issue Fatwas…. “The Emirates is now trying to protect its own country,”

He said that the council would interpret Quranic rulings not in their literal wording, but in spiritual sense. This methodology takes into account the time, place and circumstances that the ruling applies to. “We look at the spirit of the ruling and not just the letter of the ruling. Many Fatwas are based on the letter of the ruling and do not focus on circumstances” Sheikh Hamza said.

Dr Mohammad Al Kaabi, chairman of Abu Dhabi’s General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments, said that the council will also protect gullible Muslims from extremist and terrorist narratives. “It will restore the developed and clear image of Islam.”

The Fatwa council features leading scholars of Islam including Ahmad Abdul Aziz Al Haddad from the Department of Islamic Affairs and Charitable Activities in Dubai, Omar Habtoor Dhibi from the General Authority for Islamic Affairs and Endowments, Salem Mohammad Al Doubi from Sharjah Department of Islamic Affairs, Ebrahim Obaid Ali Al Ali from Umm Al Quwain Court, Shamma Yousuf Mohammad Al Dhaheri from the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments, Ahmad Mohammad Ahmad Yousuf Al Shehi from the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments and Abdullah Mohammad Ahmad Al Ansari from the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments.

In the Quran, the term Shuhuda is used for people who exemplify the virtues of the religion of Islam in their conduct, deeds, in patient perseverance and striving in the cause of Allah through the vicissitudes of life. They uphold what is just and fair. They provide witness or evidence of the nature of the religion of Islam through their personal example conforming to what is best in the Religion. They are the people who take the religion of Allah to other people through both precept and example and are the witnesses of Allah for having communicated the message of Allah to mankind. They establish a just and equitable system free from any kind of oppression or coercion. These are people whom anyone would like to emulate and by their character and conduct attract people to the religion of Islam. They provide witness or evidence of true Islam in practice.

The Quran does not use Shuhuda for the slain or the martyr at all. For a detailed exposition of the concept of Shuhuda, read my article:The Role Models in the Quran.

The Role Models in the Quran covered in verse 4:69 are:

The Siddiqin or the Sincere Seekers of the Truth

The Shuhada or those who provide witness or evidence to the people of the truth of Islam and of God’s promises being true by striving sincerely in Allah’s cause.

The Saliheen or the Righteous and the Virtuous

The martyr or those slain in the cause of Allah are calledMaqtul Fi Sabilillah. They are not called Shuhuda. There are eleven verses in the Quran that deal with the subject of those slain in the cause of Allah and the expression used for such people is uniformlyQutelu Fi Sabilillahand not Shuhuda. The martyr or theMaqtul Fi Sabilillahis not a role model in the Quran. Martyrdom is not what a Muslim seeks or a goal that a Muslim strives for. A Muslim strives (Jahadu) in the cause of Allah (fi Sabilillah) which may be an entirely peaceful striving or fighting as per the need, but even when fighting, it is not a Muslim’s goal or desire to be slain but to prevail over the oppressors to serve the cause of Allah.

Fighting in the cause of Allah was made mandatory for all able bodied Muslims who were with the Prophet (SAW) in Medina but not on those who had remained behind in Mecca. This was because the Muslims and Islam faced the prospect of total annihilation at the hands of an enemy which was numerically superior by a factor of close to fifty or more. The verse giving permission to fight is quite revealing:

(22:39) To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-

(40) (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

The justification is:

They are wronged

They are those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right. The permission to fight therefore only covers those who migrated to Medina and not those Muslims who stayed behind in Mecca. This is an important point to be noted. Those who stayed behind were not expected to indulge in acts of war or “terrorism” to weaken the enemy from within. This point is further strengthened by verse 8:72

They were not wronged in retaliation for another wrong or for any justifiable reason but for the only reason that they said “our Lord is Allah”

This permission extends to all people in a similar situation since the verse makes it clear that it is Allah who checks the oppressor with those who stand for justice to ensure that people of all faiths and their places of worship such as monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, are protected.

Allah will aid those who fight in his cause. The cause that is the subject here is religious persecution irrespective of the faith of the persecuted and the persecutor.

The Muslims were reluctant to fight because of their numerical inferiority and the prospect of what looked like certain annihilation. The Quran mobilizes such a demoralized and numerically inferior band of people to take up the fight with a far superior enemy to establish the truth of verse 58:21

“Allah has decreed: "It is I and My messengers who must prevail": For Allah is One full of strength, able to enforce His Will”.

The verses regarding fighting provide lessons in practical psychology on how to motivate a band of people who numbered not more than one thousand when they migrated to Medina, to fight and prevail over an enemy determined on annihilating them numbering close to a hundred thousand. Even then, the Quran does not glorify either war or dying in the cause of Allah. Every verse on fighting comes with a caution or a rider such as:

Do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors 2:190

Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression 2:193

If the enemy inclines towards peace, do you also incline towards peace, and trust in Allah 8:61

Let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do 5:8

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

Does the Quran Glorify those who die fighting in the cause of Allah?

The Muslims were reluctant to fight against such a formidable enemy. Apart from the fear of what looked like certain death, there were other factors that weigh with every thinking person such as:

I am in the prime of my life and have just begun to enjoy the best part of my life. Fighting and getting killed will deprive me of enjoying the only life one has.

I have just accepted Islam and have not done enough good deeds to offset my bad deeds and earn a place in Heaven. I must live longer for that and repent for all my past sins and do enough good deeds to earn a place in heaven. Dying now would mean going to Hell.

Under the circumstances, what can be expected from a just God who has given the command to fight and made it mandatory on all able bodied Muslims who were with the Prophet in Medina? What is expected is that He should take care of the legitimate concerns and reservations. The following verses must therefore be viewed in that light:

(3:157) And if ye are slain in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.

(3:169) Think not of those who are slain in Allah´s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord;

(170) They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.

(171) They glory in the Grace and the bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffers not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least).

The verses cited above are a precise response to the normal misgivings that any man would have taking part in a war where victory looks remote or even impossible, and death highly probable. What the verse communicates through the slain is that they have no regrets vis-à-vis the survivors and that they are rejoicing in the bounty of Allah. This sets at rest all the misgivings a person may have. The verses provide details of the “Insurance Cover” should fighting in the cause of Allah result in death. The Insurance Cover leaves a person with no excuse to shirk from participating in a war on the side of justice and against oppression. The Insurance is valid only if:

The fighting is in the cause of Allah. The only cause of Allah for which fighting is permitted is in a legitimate war against an oppressor and in the cause of justice.

The soldier fights to win the war and prevail over the enemy. The Insurance is valid only if death is incidental and not actively sought. Achieving “martyrdom” cannot be an aim. The death of a warrior does not achieve any purpose. It is a man’s striving in the cause of Allah that helps achieve Allah’s cause. Since death while fighting is a possibility, Allah provides the “Insurance Cover” only for incidental deaths and not for those who seek death.

The Quran glorifies neither war nor being slain in the cause of Allah. It only provides assurance that those who are slain in the cause of Allah are forgiven their sins and rewarded with Heaven and that they are left with no regrets vis-à-vis the survivors. There is no verse in the Quran that even asks the Muslims to seek “martyrdom”.

Changes in the Concept ofShahadah

MaulanaWahiduddin Khan writes: “In the early period of Islam the wordShahadahwas used in the sense of witnessing to the Truth. As far as giving up one’s life in God’s path is concerned, the term that was used wasQital.For example, the Quran says (2:154):

Do not say that those who are killed in God’s cause (Yuqtalu Fi Sabil Allah) are dead; they are alive, but you are not aware of it.

In line with this Quranic verse, those who are killed in God’s cause will be calledMaqtul Fi Sabilillah(one who is killed in the cause of God). Undoubtedly, such a person will receive a great reward from God, but if he is remembered in human language, he will be calledMaqtul Fi Sabil Allah, one who is killed in the cause of God. During the Battle ofUhud, in the year 3 A.H., 70 companions of the Prophet were killed. This is recounted in a tradition in theSahih Bukhari,which says: ‘On the day ofUhud,seventy among the companions of the Prophet were killed.’ (Sahih Bukhari,4078). This example again shows that during the Prophet’s period, one who was killed in God’s cause was referred to asMaqtuland notShahid,or martyr.

Is The Corruption In The Meaning Of Shuhuda On Account Of Greek Or Persian Influence?

The word martyr derives from the Greek martyrios which means both a witness and aMaqtul fi Sabilillahor one slain in the cause of his religion or belief system. The Quran does not use Shuhuda forMaqtul Fi Sabilillah. Shuhuda is used for the living. A Shuhuda may die a natural death or could be slain in the cause of Allah and becomeMaqtul Fi Sabilillahbut aMaqtul Fi Sabilillahdoes not imply Shuhuda.

The change in the meaning of Shuhuda to mean “martyr” is a politically motivated innovation to glorify “martyrdom” and aBid’at. This is not a minor matter but a major Bid’at. We pray to Allah in Surah Fateha to show us the way of those on whom is Allah’s Grace (AnʿAmtaʿAlayhim). Who these people areon whom is Allah’s Grace is made clear in verse 4:69

(4:69) All who obey Allah and the messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah (AnʿAma L-LahuʿAlayhim),- of the prophets (l-Nabiyīna), the sincere lovers of Truth (Wal-ṣidīqīna), the witnesses (Wal-Shuhadāi), and the Righteous who do good (Wal-ṣāliḥīna): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship!

The meaning of Shuhuda as made clear by the Quran covers three types of people:

Those who do exemplary Dawa with words and by example and provide evidence (witness) of the true religion of Islam

Those who render exemplary justice and provide proof (witness) of Allah’s justice

Those who are steadfast and patiently persevere through the vicissitudes of life in the cause of Allah. Such people finally prevail and provide proof (witness) that God’s promises are true.

There is no other meaning of Shuhuda in the Quran and it most certainly does not mean “martyr”.

And now read Maududi’s translation of verse 4:69

And who-so-ever obeys Allah and the Messenger, shall be with those whom Allah has blessed-the Prophets, the truthful and the martyrs and the righteous: what excellent companions these are that one may get!

Shuhuda has not only become “martyr” but part of our prayer in Surah Fateha recited in everyRak’atof ourSalatwhere we are asking Allah to show us the path of the martyr! The path of the Siddiq and the path of the Saliheen are difficult. The path of the true Shuhuda is also difficult. The path of the martyr is however the easiest. Practically therefore, the martyr has become the exclusive role model for the Muslim youth through corruption of the meaning of Shuhuda! No wonder why it is so easy to incite Muslim youth to take to violence.

The behaviour of a Muslim in seeking martyrdom is glorified to ensure a steady supply of those seeking “martyrdom”. What Allah asks the Muslims is to strive in the cause of Allah in patience and with perseverance. Doing peaceful Dawah is what is required unless there is oppression. Both fighting and getting slain can only be incidental and not the purpose or goal of a Muslim. Unfortunately, this Bid’at of calling the slain Shaheed has made fighting a sought after goal with the result that the Muslims engage even in unjust fighting and have become oppressors. Oppression is the worst from ofKufrand fighting against suchKufrof the Muslims would in fact beQital Fi Sabilillah. Without doubt, those who fight not on the side of justice are oppressors and will die as kafir. They are those who are oppressing and killing religious minorities.

How Was The Change In The Meaning Of Shuhuda To Mean “Martyr” Achieved?

References to the slain in Islamic battles are found in manyAhadithand inSiraliterature or the biographical accounts of the Prophet. These accounts make it appear as if the early Muslims understood the meaning of `Shuhada'as referring to those Muslims who died in battle. However, MaulanaWahiduddin writes: “After the age of the Prophet, the age of his companions and the generation after them are regarded as authentic periods of Islamic history. The very same manner of referring to people who had been slain in the path of God asMaqtul Fi Sabil Allahcontinued to be followed in this period, too. But after this period, a change gradually emerged in the use of the termShahadah, in the same way as changes began being made in the understanding of several other Islamic teachings, so much so that Muslims almost forgot that the termShahadahmeantDawahand instead began to use the word as synonymous with martyrdom.

In later times, a new practice developed of people who had died in battle being called Shahidsor ‘martyrs’. The word Shahid began being added to their names. So, for instance,Hasan al-Banna(the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who was assassinated in 1949) began being called as‘Hasan al-Banna Shahid’, Sayyid Qutb(key ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was hanged in 1966) as ‘Sayyid Qutb Shahid’, Sayyid Ahmad (killed in 1831 in a war he declared against the Sikhs) as ‘Sayyid Ahmad Shahid’, Shah Ismail (follower ofSayyid Ahmad, who was killed along with him) as ‘Shah Ismail Shahid’, and so on. There were several companions of the Prophet whose lives were also sacrificed, but in none of their cases was the word Shahid appended to their names. So, although their lives were sacrificed, the CaliphsUmar ibn al-Khattab,Uthman ibn AffanandAli ibn Abi Talibare not called ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab Shahid’, ‘Uthman ibn Affan Shahid’ and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib Shahid’ respectively. The names of the Prophet’s companions were always written and mentioned along with that of their fathers (for example, Ali ibn [son of]AbiTalib), and not with the suffix Shahid, in contrast to the practice that developed later. Accordingly,Imam Bukhari,in his collection of hadith reports, has a chapter containing reports of this sort, titled Bab LaYaqulufulan Shahid, meaning ‘Chapter on Not Calling So and So a Shahid’.”

TheAhadithandSiraliterature that refer to the slain as Shuhuda and make it appear that this was how the Prophet (SAW) and the people in his times understood its meaning, are clearly distortions and falsehood. The glorification of the slain by adding Shaheed to the name of the slain is also a later date innovation with the obvious intention of glorifying “martyrdom”.

Is Suicide Bombing a Shi’ite Bid’at or Innovation?

Bernard K. Freamon in his paper “Martyrdom, Suicide, and the Islamic Law of War: A Short Legal History” writes “The current justifications for self-annihilatory violence are the result of a major reinterpretation of the theology and religious law on martyrdom and the military jihad advanced by Shi'ite theologians and jurists in Iraq and Iran between the mid-1960s and the late-1970s. While there are great similarities between the Sunni and Shi'a approaches to the regulation of behaviour in war, the Shi'a approach to martyrdom is significantly different from that of the Sunnis. Husayn's example, with its emphasis on extreme self-sacrifice and militancy as a weapon against tyranny and injustice, has always been among the most important paradigms in Shi'a theology, although the “Twelvers,” the majority Shi'a sect, did not emphasize its militant aspects for over a thousand years. Beginning with the advent of European colonialism in the eighteenth century, the paradigm of Husayn's martyrdom began to take an increased importance as a normative reference point for anti-colonial activities among the Shi'a. Although the paradigm of the normative example of Husayn ebbed and flowed as a political rallying point for over two hundred years, it ultimately reached a zenith when an important group of Shi'a Ulema came together in the Iraqi city of Najaf in the 1960s. This group began to robustly revive and reinterpret the paradigm in a way that eventually led to self-annihilatory violent behaviour by Shi'a military jihadists, fundamentally altering the Shi'a conception of the religious law of martyrdom.

This new Shi'a discourse on jihad and martyrdom emerging from Najaf--led by Imam Ruhollah Khomeini and a brilliant Iraqi jurist named Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, and later by Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, spiritual mentor of Hizbu'llah in Lebanon--rapidly proliferated throughout the Muslim world. It became an important factor in the achievement of several practical successes, particularly the Iranian Islamic Revolution and, sometime later, the ejection of Israeli, French, and American forces from Lebanon. While Sunni Islamists also worked a similar re-interpretive revival of the Sunni sources on the military jihad during this same time in Egypt and elsewhere, they never advocated self-annihilation and they did not achieve the kinds of spectacular successes accomplished by the Shi'a jihadists. The Shi'a reinterpretation of the theology and law on jihad and martyrdom, first articulated by Khomeini and the Ulema in Najaf, and later elaborated by Fadlallah in Lebanon, went much further than the Sunni reinterpretation and has profoundly influenced the behaviour of all subsequent military jihadists throughout the Islamic world.

This revived Shi'a approach to martyrdom now dominates all Muslim conceptions of the military jihad, whether Sunni or Shi'a. This transformation of religious doctrine, championed by the Shi'a Ulema and emulated first by Hizbu'llah, then by the Palestinians and later by Al Qaeda, resulted in the appearance of a new norm of jihadist battlefield behaviour--self-annihilation--a norm that is now accepted as a valid discharge of religious obligation under the law of the military jihad by a great many Muslim jurists, Sunni and Shi'a. This conclusion effectively debunks the conventional wisdom, popular in many quarters, that self-annihilatory violence by the Palestinians and by operatives of Al Qaeda flows from either a nihilistic sense of despair growing out of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza or from adherence to Wahhabism. Wahhabism actually has very little do with the current jihadist use of self-annihilatory violence, and that Arab and Muslim despair, while an important factor, cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for such violence. Rather, it is the Shi'a theology that provides the linchpin for such behaviour.”

Shi’ite Bid’at of Suicide Bombing Gets Adopted By Sunni Islam

The Sunni militants dropped the use of the word “suicide” and re labelled their attacks “martyrdom operations” (‘Amaliyat Istishhadiyaa), since Islam forbids suicide. By calling suicide bombing “martyrdom operations”, they have achieved the difficult task of legitimizing suicide as legitimate, legal, and laudable.

Conclusion

We have discussed how politics has interfered with religion to transform the meaning of Shuhuda to mean martyr in order to glorify martyrdom and ensure a steady supply of young men willing to be martyred. They then made seeking martyrdom a laudable goal by reinterpreting the political killing of Hazrat Husain (RA). In the revised doctrine of martyrdom, Hussain is projected as a willing political martyr rather than a tragic figure killed for political reasons. This has transformed quietist Shi’ism into radicalized, proactive seekers of political martyrdom. The Sunnis have followed the Shia example. Political violence has thus been sanctified as holy by claiming that those who die spearheading Islamic political violence are ‘martyrs’ orShahidslike Hazrat Hussain (RA).This is the ultimate in distortion of the meaning of Shuhuda that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Quran andHadithsince:

Political violence and terrorism is not a just war

A just war is waged by a just ruler for justice and against oppression

Only the slain fighting a just waris Maqtul Fi Sabilillahentitled to God’s forgiveness.

Martyrdom is incidental and never to be sought nor desired nor a worthwhile goal for a Muslim

Those killed indulging in political violence are simply Maqtul and not evenMaqtul Fi Sabilillah. Those killed in suicide bombing are guilty of committing suicide.

Those targeting non-combatants and killing them are oppressors and murderers.

Political Islam has turned the religion of Islam into a death cult of killers and murderers by glorifying fighting and calling their slain Shuhuda! These killers, their handlers and their Ulema are bound for Hell and not Heaven.

The great attraction of reformist movements has been the call to go back to the pristine Islam of the Prophet’s times and eschewing all Bid’at or innovation that has crept into the Religion of Islam. To my mind, the greatest Bid’at is the corruption in the meaning of Shuhuda to mean martyr followed by legitimizing suicide bombing through the use of the euphemism ‘martyrdom operations’ or ‘Amaliyat Istishhadiyaa’. While fighting in the cause of Allah (Qital Fi Sabilillah) is a command to fight oppression, there is no concept of “Martyrdom Operations”.

A Muslim is asked to strive in the cause of Allah through peaceful means or through fighting against oppression in a just war but he is not asked to fight seeking martyrdom or to undertake martyrdom operations! Seeking martyrdom is a major Bid’at and a recent Shi’ite innovation achieved by reinterpreting the political killing of Hazrat Hussain (RA) as a deliberate act on the part of Hazrat Hussain, who they now say, sought martyrdom to register his opposition to Yazid’s usurpation of the Khilafat and to set an example for other political dissidents to follow. His killing which was mourned over the last 1400 years is now to be celebrated! The Sunni militants have quietly adopted the new definitions.

While the militants have their own “embedded” Ulema, what is surprising is that the mainstream Ulema of sects that abhor all Bid’at and have declared war against Bid’at are silent on this major Bid’at which is misguiding thousands of our young and showing them the path of those on whom is Allah’s wrath and those who go astray and not the path of those on whom is Allah’s Grace! No good can come from corrupting the religion for political ends and the Ulema who are silent on this major Bid’at are party to the harm that is caused to individuals, the society and to the religion of Islam.

Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com.